Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.

The Federalist article says the foundation’s tweet exaggerates when it says money spent "directly" on "life-changing work," when in fact the group, by its own calculations, "spent nearly $8.5 million – 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures – on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million – 5.6 percent of all expenditures – was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers ‘life-changing’ commodities?"

[...]

The foundation sent PolitiFact a rough geographic breakdown for program spending in 2012 and 2013. It cited expenditures split between 66.2 percent for the United States, 18.1 percent for South America, 5.6 percent for Southeast Asia, 4.9 percent for Sub-Saharan Africa, 3.6 percent for Central America and the Caribbean, 1.2 percent for West and Central Africa and 0.4 percent for Mexico. [Note: Staff are paid majorly, with numerous lead staff being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each]

That’s more than we had expected to see in domestic spending -- we’re checking with the foundation on why that was so high, and will report their explanation if we receive one -- but even if the foundation devoted as little as one-third of its expenses to programs outside the U.S., then Limbaugh’s 15 percent estimate would be too low.

[...]

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.​

The Federalist article says the foundation’s tweet exaggerates when it says money spent "directly" on "life-changing work," when in fact the group, by its own calculations, "spent nearly $8.5 million – 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures – on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million – 5.6 percent of all expenditures – was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers ‘life-changing’ commodities?"

[...]

The foundation sent PolitiFact a rough geographic breakdown for program spending in 2012 and 2013. It cited expenditures split between 66.2 percent for the United States, 18.1 percent for South America, 5.6 percent for Southeast Asia, 4.9 percent for Sub-Saharan Africa, 3.6 percent for Central America and the Caribbean, 1.2 percent for West and Central Africa and 0.4 percent for Mexico. [Note: Staff are paid majorly, with numerous lead staff being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each]

That’s more than we had expected to see in domestic spending -- we’re checking with the foundation on why that was so high, and will report their explanation if we receive one -- but even if the foundation devoted as little as one-third of its expenses to programs outside the U.S., then Limbaugh’s 15 percent estimate would be too low.

[...]

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.​

Click to expand...

blah blah blah red bold, red bold, blah blah blah

"The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False."

"The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False."

Click to expand...

Yep, they rate it mostly false because his statement wasn’t true. But his statement being untrue does not negate what I bolded, that Politifact found to be true. You should try reading sometime, learn sumfin.

Yep, they rate it mostly false because his statement wasn’t true. But his statement being untrue does not negate what I bolded, that Politifact found to be true. You should try reading sometime, learn sumfin.

Click to expand...

Yawn. I read it. You keep thinking just because my opinion differs from yours that I haven't read what you wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. You're very thorough in your formatting. Retentively so.

Yawn. I read it. You keep thinking just because my opinion differs from yours that I haven't read what you wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. You're very thorough in your formatting. Retentively so.

Click to expand...

So then if you read it, you know that your above comment is false. Politifact did not find what I bolded false, they only found Limbaugh’s statement false. You’re literate enough to have realized that, yes?

Jeebus, it's the same bull**** over and over. Almost all of the Clinton Foundation charity work is direct funded work - that is the CF develops and implements the programs themselves. They do give a small amount of money to other organizations, which is the amount The Daily Cholera is falsely claiming is this only charitable expenditures. They're lying and they know they're lying.

Jeebus, it's the same bull**** over and over. Almost all of the Clinton Foundation charity work is direct funded work - that is the CF develops and implements the programs themselves. They do give a small amount of money to other organizations, which is the amount The Daily Cholera is falsely claiming is this only charitable expenditures. They're lying and they know they're lying.

But the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.

Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.​

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.​

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this?Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?​

Killary: “You torture and murder gays? Women have no rights? You treat blacks like slaves, and force literal minorities who are dirt poor into slave labor by stealing their passports once they arrive in your country? I would love your money!”

you didn't ask about trading, you just said how do they get this rich.

--- Post Merged, Sep 16, 2016 ---

You might be experiencing jealousy, it can happen when looking at big net worth numbers.

Click to expand...

I don't ask a lot a things, but I do continually say just how much I love you and everyone else
stuck at work since 7 am, going home at 9 pm anyways back to learning programming with Swift 3. forever yours, Midge.

Factcheck says you are wrong. The Clinton Foundation doesn't function primarily as a source for grant funds, it operates its own programs. And that is where a good percentage of it's money went.

Quote

We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.

Click to expand...

Factcheck goes on to say ...

Quote

... it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Click to expand...

So @ucfgrad93, are you interested in clearing up your misunderstanding of how public charities work? Or is it more important for you to cling to falsehoods about HRC because you hate her so much?

This has been explained over and over, but it just can't fit into the Right's uninformed or decidedly misleading narrative spread to the easily influenced. The Clinton Foundation main activity is not grants, it's programs, but you don't really want to hear that do you?

The Federalist article says the foundation’s tweet exaggerates when it says money spent "directly" on "life-changing work," when in fact the group, by its own calculations, "spent nearly $8.5 million – 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures – on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million – 5.6 percent of all expenditures – was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers ‘life-changing’ commodities?"

[...]

The foundation sent PolitiFact a rough geographic breakdown for program spending in 2012 and 2013. It cited expenditures split between 66.2 percent for the United States, 18.1 percent for South America, 5.6 percent for Southeast Asia, 4.9 percent for Sub-Saharan Africa, 3.6 percent for Central America and the Caribbean, 1.2 percent for West and Central Africa and 0.4 percent for Mexico. [Note: Staff are paid majorly, with numerous lead staff being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each]

That’s more than we had expected to see in domestic spending -- we’re checking with the foundation on why that was so high, and will report their explanation if we receive one -- but even if the foundation devoted as little as one-third of its expenses to programs outside the U.S., then Limbaugh’s 15 percent estimate would be too low.

[...]

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.​

Click to expand...

I don't even know what point you are trying to make with all of this. my comment was directed to the falsely leading suggestion that only 5.7% of the Clinton Foundation expenditures for 2014 actually went to charitable acts. I don't know what the true number is. what is true is that the amount of money they give to other organizations (that 5.7%) represents only a fraction of the work done as a result of the foundation.

Do I think the Clinton Foundation is bloated and inefficient? do I think it is staffed with ineffective patronage recipients? of course. I will figure that for any organization not accountable to the open market (and many that are). do I think that 94.3% of their expenditures went to administration and fundraising? not at all. is some amount of travel expense expected for an organization that operates globally? yes, of course. are they spending too much on travel? probably. but since the Clinton Foundation is managing and running it's own projects shouldn't it be expected to pay salaries and expenses for those projects?

do I think that "charitable foundations" are often the warm soapy water used to gently wash the blood off the hands of corporations, governments and the ultra-rich. oh yes. but look what it did for Rockefeller's image. the Clinton's are only playing in the same pool that had been there long before they showed up.

Is the Clinton Foundation even more nefarious than others like it? the investigations are starting. we will find out soon enough.

do I think that "charitable foundations" are often the warm soapy water used to gently wash the blood off the hands of corporations, governments and the ultra-rich. oh yes. but look what it did for Rockefeller's image. the Clinton's are only playing in the same pool that had been there long before they showed up.

Click to expand...

A charity is a nonprofit corporation that produces public goods. The efficient production of these public goods depends in no small part, on being well capitalized.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.